No 4th Crusade: what happens to the Byzantine Empire?

[Byzantine fanatic]

The Byzantine Empire was conquered in 1204 by the forces of the Fourth Crusade. The empire was dismantled and its territories divided up between Venice and the new Latin Empire of Constantinople, led by Baldwin of Flanders.

The effects of this were pretty disastrous for the Byzantines, and the event set the stage for the rise of the Ottoman Empire which eventually replaced Byzantium and dominated the region for the next 700 years. In the more short term, Byzantine successor states also emerged in Nicaea, Trebizond and Epirus.

What do you think would have happened if the 4th crusade never occurred? Would Byzantium have fallen anyway? Or would it have continued for longer?

Map below shows the partition of the Byzantine Empire in 1204.

Spoiler

 

[Wolttaire]

They prob keep re conquering parts of turkey and the balkans

 

[trajen777]

IN 1204 you have a weird situation. Constantinople was at near record high population. It was at the height of its wealth. Its army was decent (poorly led). Now the Turks were at a weak point. The Byz in 1180 they had a navy of 300 ships. If no 1204 you would have seen a good emperor emerge over the next several. You would have most likely seen some type of solid navy (maybe 120 ships) which would have made it hard for anyone to capture the city. The wealth would have allowed a good emperor to expand the military gain ground in Anatolia, and support some type of crusader state. I think with this you would have seen a pulling together of the churches with Rome needing the Byz to support the crusaders.

So if you had taken Anatolia up to the Taurus mts (likely). Negotiated away the Mongols ( a good chance). They would have held their own for most of history. Extreme wealth. A profitable Balkans (much of the wealth was coming from the Balkans ) with a recovering Anatolia. No real enemy from the east (Osman was a minor chieftain in this scenario ). Some key city state crusader controlled and part of or Byz (Acre etc) --- And an early adapter of gun powder weapons (wealth -- manf industry - infrastructure)

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

The Romans may have to deal with the Bulgarians first before starting an Anatolian adventure. Honestly... my scepticism on Roman Emperors post-Basil II make me think if a same Emperor can come around.

The Mongols are a bigger problem. With Bulgaria being secured again by 1220s, that leaves no time to restart a war against the Seljuks to also avoid a conflict with the Mongolians. The trick is, if the Mongolians defeat the Seljuks and the Mamluks defeat the Mongol Forces then the Romans might be the third party to take the share while doing nothing. But this really requires a John Tzimiskes alike Emperor. In best case scenario, the borders of 1071 can be regained without Antioch and Croatia though.

Any Michael VII alike emperor can fck it up bad with Mongolians on both shores of the Bosporus.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

For me, a Post-1204 scenario is contingent on the right leader emerging at the right time, and that is by no means guaranteed. However, lets assume for the sake of argument that we do. A reasonably competent dynasty has control of the Empire at some of its greatest height, and has an interesting opportunities on its doorstep.

1) The Mongol Conquests
a) As a result, the disintegration of the Sultanate of Rum, allowing the Romans to rapidly take advantage of its collapse. This is great for the Romans as they can engage in a rapid reconquest. However, as highlighted, the Mongols need to be kept on side.
b) Mongol Alliances - much like Russia in the north, the Romans could well take a position of an enforcer, or extension of Mongol Rule, working with the Mongols as allies whilst paying tribute to restore large swathes of the Roman Empire, because that tributary can project Mongol power. This means a SIGNIFICANT Mongol influence, and potentially a Romano-Borjiginid dynasty eventually takes the reigns of the Roman Empire.
c) Golden Horde-Ilkhanate Feud. Even if (b) doesn't happen, a stable Roman Empire between those two powers is obviously one that could be the focus of diplomatic efforts to destroy the other. That could bear fruit.

2) Lombard League - this is a huge deal, and could go a number of ways if the Romans are able to apply influence.
a) Roman support - the Lombard League as an ally of the Romans opens the door to the Romans re-entering S.Italy, and would potentially lead to the Lombard League becoming permenant (they want neither their new ally, nor the HRE as their rulers)
b) HRE support - the Romans could agree with the HRE to split Italy, and mutually apply authority over N.Italy. For the HRE, it means they don't need to repeatedly come south, for the Romans it puts them back in Italy. The key bit is how the power-sharing works. Do they both have a split of tribute? That I'm not 100% clear on. Alternatively, in exchange for 10% of the revenues of N.Italy in perpetuity, the HRE greenlights the Romans dealing with the Italians and annexing the region outright. The HRE suddenly has quite a lot of gold coming in for next to no effort. (And the Romans have Italy, and the Pope, in hand).
c) Papal Alliance - the HRE and Roman Empire are both able to counterweight each other. The Papacy could benefit from having the Romans in S.Italy, but the HRE in N.Italy once again. It guarantees Papal independence.

3) Reform. Again, the Mongols are so important for this period. The Mongol Empire uses similar strategies to some periods of the Roman army - mobile ranged cavalry, support troops, etc. This doesn't mean that both sides can't learn from each other. As stated earlier, I can see a Mongol-descendent family rising to the Purple. But the Mongols also open the door to ideas flowing east and west aggressively, and provide a period of peace, and likely brutal enforcement of that peace, to minimise civil wars in the Roman Empire. Long enough to instigate reforms. We could see all sorts of ideas come from China, or the Mongols. Potentially the Romans institute a system of Exams like in China, or take on board the Mongol merit system. Plus, with the Mongols enforcing peace on the Asian borders - a lot of the issues the Roman Emperors had with border Strategoi becoming very powerful and popular dissipates as they aren't needed. That border can be brought back under direct control, or even the Theme System abolished in favour of a central administration and Tagmata once again.

4) Expansion. I mentioned in 1b, that the Romans could be an enforcer and an extension of Mongol rule. This could facilitate a truly frighteningly large expansion. Romano-Mongol campaigns could hit Italy, Hungary, Africa, Arabia, Syria. We could see the Mongols establish a dozen smaller states that the Romans are in charge of collecting the tribute for, and sending it to Karakorum. The Romans also have to enforce that rule. Which means that if/when the Mongols collapse (I mean, the Romans could prevent that, see 1c as a potential root cause there) the Romans can pull a Moscow and walk into their former "enforcement zone" and establish either direct rule, or a series of eventually integrated Katepanates/administrations.

This is DEEPLY optimistic, because the alternative is that the Roman Empire is promenent enough to be seen as a worthwhile target. This could mean direct attack, or the Mongols partnering with the Seljuks to establish THEM as an enforcer.

EDIT : I realise I've completely missed out dealing with Bulgaria - that is an obvious potential, again on the same grounds as dealing with the Seljuks. Mongols smash, Romans waltz.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

In best case scenario, the borders of 1071 can be regained without Antioch and Croatia though.

Really? Isn't that a bit optimistic? Turks have been in central Anatolia for 130 years by 1204...
I think maybe it was possible in the Byzantine invasion of 1176, if they win at Myriokephalon it was possible to recover Anatolia. But after 1204? With Bulgaria independent?
Yes, it's a good suggestion to focus on defeating Bulgaria first. Even this would be a significant achievement since it took the Byzantines centuries to achieve conquest of Bulgaria before 1018.
Then turning east and also having luck in Anatolia... it's a lot of luck the Byzantines will need in this scenario, it seems.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Really? Isn't that a bit optimistic? Turks have been in central Anatolia for 130 years by 1204...
I think maybe it was possible in the Byzantine invasion of 1176, if they win at Myriokephalon it was possible to recover Anatolia. But after 1204? With Bulgaria independent?
Yes, it's a good suggestion to focus on defeating Bulgaria first. Even this would be a significant achievement since it took the Byzantines centuries to achieve conquest of Bulgaria before 1018.
Then turning east and also having luck in Anatolia... it's a lot of luck the Byzantines will need in this scenario, it seems.

Best case scenario. If the Mongolians wreck the Seljuks enough and in return the Mamluks wreck the Mongols then it may take an able Emperor take advantage of this. Keeping Anatolia is a different matter though. The Mongolians will return and the Turks will by no means tolerate the Roman Rule in Anatolia. But as I said, best case scenario. It is not likely but not impossible either.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

For me, a Post-1204 scenario is contingent on the right leader emerging at the right time, and that is by no means guaranteed. However, lets assume for the sake of argument that we do. A reasonably competent dynasty has control of the Empire at some of its greatest height, and has an interesting opportunities on its doorstep.

1) The Mongol Conquests
a) As a result, the disintegration of the Sultanate of Rum, allowing the Romans to rapidly take advantage of its collapse. This is great for the Romans as they can engage in a rapid reconquest. However, as highlighted, the Mongols need to be kept on side.
b) Mongol Alliances - much like Russia in the north, the Romans could well take a position of an enforcer, or extension of Mongol Rule, working with the Mongols as allies whilst paying tribute to restore large swathes of the Roman Empire, because that tributary can project Mongol power. This means a SIGNIFICANT Mongol influence, and potentially a Romano-Borjiginid dynasty eventually takes the reigns of the Roman Empire.
c) Golden Horde-Ilkhanate Feud. Even if (b) doesn't happen, a stable Roman Empire between those two powers is obviously one that could be the focus of diplomatic efforts to destroy the other. That could bear fruit.

2) Lombard League - this is a huge deal, and could go a number of ways if the Romans are able to apply influence.
a) Roman support - the Lombard League as an ally of the Romans opens the door to the Romans re-entering S.Italy, and would potentially lead to the Lombard League becoming permenant (they want neither their new ally, nor the HRE as their rulers)
b) HRE support - the Romans could agree with the HRE to split Italy, and mutually apply authority over N.Italy. For the HRE, it means they don't need to repeatedly come south, for the Romans it puts them back in Italy. The key bit is how the power-sharing works. Do they both have a split of tribute? That I'm not 100% clear on. Alternatively, in exchange for 10% of the revenues of N.Italy in perpetuity, the HRE greenlights the Romans dealing with the Italians and annexing the region outright. The HRE suddenly has quite a lot of gold coming in for next to no effort. (And the Romans have Italy, and the Pope, in hand).
c) Papal Alliance - the HRE and Roman Empire are both able to counterweight each other. The Papacy could benefit from having the Romans in S.Italy, but the HRE in N.Italy once again. It guarantees Papal independence.

3) Reform. Again, the Mongols are so important for this period. The Mongol Empire uses similar strategies to some periods of the Roman army - mobile ranged cavalry, support troops, etc. This doesn't mean that both sides can't learn from each other. As stated earlier, I can see a Mongol-descendent family rising to the Purple. But the Mongols also open the door to ideas flowing east and west aggressively, and provide a period of peace, and likely brutal enforcement of that peace, to minimise civil wars in the Roman Empire. Long enough to instigate reforms. We could see all sorts of ideas come from China, or the Mongols. Potentially the Romans institute a system of Exams like in China, or take on board the Mongol merit system. Plus, with the Mongols enforcing peace on the Asian borders - a lot of the issues the Roman Emperors had with border Strategoi becoming very powerful and popular dissipates as they aren't needed. That border can be brought back under direct control, or even the Theme System abolished in favour of a central administration and Tagmata once again.

4) Expansion. I mentioned in 1b, that the Romans could be an enforcer and an extension of Mongol rule. This could facilitate a truly frighteningly large expansion. Romano-Mongol campaigns could hit Italy, Hungary, Africa, Arabia, Syria. We could see the Mongols establish a dozen smaller states that the Romans are in charge of collecting the tribute for, and sending it to Karakorum. The Romans also have to enforce that rule. Which means that if/when the Mongols collapse (I mean, the Romans could prevent that, see 1c as a potential root cause there) the Romans can pull a Moscow and walk into their former "enforcement zone" and establish either direct rule, or a series of eventually integrated Katepanates/administrations.

This is DEEPLY optimistic, because the alternative is that the Roman Empire is promenent enough to be seen as a worthwhile target. This could mean direct attack, or the Mongols partnering with the Seljuks to establish THEM as an enforcer.

EDIT : I realise I've completely missed out dealing with Bulgaria - that is an obvious potential, again on the same grounds as dealing with the Seljuks. Mongols smash, Romans waltz.

As you have noticed it, the Bulgarians have to be dealt with. It does not have to take more than a decade to completely overrun Bulgaria. It may even be a new home to the Cumans of the Northern Black Sea. The Cumans can be an alternative to the local hostile Bulgarians and both groups can be used against each other. At that point there are two options... Option A). Anatolia. Most likely option but also a harder choice. The area is populated with hostile Turkish Muslims and in lesser degree Armenians. Both are not keen on Roman Rule in Anatolia. Option B). Southern Italy. This one will require much resources but as the Italians are not too keen on the German Emperor they may view the Greek Emperor as an alternative. The area is Catholic, not making the situation ideal either. But the choice would make more sense than taking on the Seljuks early on. Anatolia is also bigger.

Without considering in hindsight, I would still go for Southern Italy first if I were the Emperor. Either for Sicily or the Entire Southern Part.The German Emperor can deal with the North and the Roman Emperor can take advantage (note, like Anatolia this also needs to go right in every aspects or it will be a wasteful attempt). If the moment is right I would strike on the Seljuks, that is of course after the Mongolian Invasion. If the Mongolians are in the Caucasus then any Emperor with the right mind will know that the Mongolians may also try to subdue the Seljuks of Anatolia. Not a smart move to attack Anatolia then and no attack will happen. But if a conflict breaks out while the Seljuks are broken and the Mongolians fleeing Anatolia for the Mamluks of Egypt then the Romans can start their Anatolian Campaign. There is no better chance to do this. The problem is however... OTL Mamluks did not stay for too long in Central Anatolia and returned to Syria. The Mongols will try to restore or protect their Seljuk Vassals as much as possible. Depending on if the right Emperor is on the throne, the Mongolians can be dealt with as much as opportunities allow them.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

As you have noticed it, the Bulgarians have to be dealt with. It does not have to take more than a decade to completely overrun Bulgaria. It may even be a new home to the Cumans of the Northern Black Sea. The Cumans can be an alternative to the local hostile Bulgarians and both groups can be used against each other. At that point there are two options... Option A). Anatolia. Most likely option but also a harder choice. The area is populated with hostile Turkish Muslims and in lesser degree Armenians. Both are not keen on Roman Rule in Anatolia. Option B). Southern Italy. This one will require much resources but as the Italians are not too keen on the German Emperor they may view the Greek Emperor as an alternative. The area is Catholic, not making the situation ideal either. But the choice would make more sense than taking on the Seljuks early on. Anatolia is also bigger.

Without considering in hindsight, I would still go for Southern Italy first if I were the Emperor. Either for Sicily or the Entire Southern Part.The German Emperor can deal with the North and the Roman Emperor can take advantage (note, like Anatolia this also needs to go right in every aspects or it will be a wasteful attempt). If the moment is right I would strike on the Seljuks, that is of course after the Mongolian Invasion. If the Mongolians are in the Caucasus then any Emperor with the right mind will know that the Mongolians may also try to subdue the Seljuks of Anatolia. Not a smart move to attack Anatolia then and no attack will happen. But if a conflict breaks out while the Seljuks are broken and the Mongolians fleeing Anatolia for the Mamluks of Egypt then the Romans can start their Anatolian Campaign. There is no better chance to do this. The problem is however... OTL Mamluks did not stay for too long in Central Anatolia and returned to Syria. The Mongols will try to restore or protect their Seljuk Vassals as much as possible. Depending on if the right Emperor is on the throne, the Mongolians can be dealt with as much as opportunities allow them.

I won't lie, before clearing Anatolia, I fear that a move to South Italy would be (unless extremely advantageous) very dangerous. Anatolia did have some depopulation, but we're still two centuries away from the complete (if ever really total) Turkification of Anatolia. No, the population is still very Greek, and very Orthodox. The Romans being able to step in during the wake of the failed Georgian affair is a slim possibility, but is still possible, meaning potential Anatolian reconquests BEFORE the Mongols. This means no Trebizond conquests - at least no guarantee, but instead a united Roman action. There is no Sultanate of Rum that is more-or-less unmolested by the Romans, but instead one actively challenged.

And I think this is in character - after all, the Romans did try and get the Crusaders (repeatedly) to take cities from the Turks. This worked, and then the Romans moved in. (Or failed to in a number of cases). They obviously recognised the importance of retaking Anatolia. Now I initially focused on the Mongols, but there are some earlier opportunities, but that relies on a dynamic Emperor. The latest of these is the uprising of Baba Ishak - I don't know if that will unfold exactly the same way, but I would expect a Baba to cause a problem. Which then opens the doors for the Romans. Ishak took 3 years to deal with.

They key is whether the Romans can make the needed alliances with the Mongols. IOTL, they did at great cost, after the raids in Thrace. Just maintaining territory outside of the Mongols would be grand, especially if that doesn't change the Mongol succession, as the Romans can focus on some level of reforms rather than reconquest. It is only in this window that I could agree with the invasion of S.Italy being the better option.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Any specific POD?
However if this is after the rise of Alexius III, there are good chances that his son in law Theodore end up emperor. With him in control of a stronger empire I foresee something akin to the Komnenian restoration.

 

[Albert.Nik]

These are the possibilities but we need to know the composition of Eastern Anatolia too which I hope @Byzantine fanatic can post here.

First possibility is that the Byzantine Empire survives and the Seljuks convert to Byzantine Orthodoxy becoming a part of the Byzantine Empire making them a Turkish speaking dynasty.

Second possibility is that Byzantine Empire reconquers the Eastern regions as it did during the Macedonian dynasty eventually bringing Eastern Anatolia,Balkans,Northern Levant back into the Byzantine lands. Turks convert to Byzantine Church here too and become a part of the Empire.

A power from Further in the East from the regions like Caucasus could emerge and take the vacuum that is left by the multiple states in the Anatolia.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

What do you think would have been the butterflies, for Roman Empire, of 4th Crusade being successful - as in, going to Egypt as originally planned, and winning?

 

[Lewndan]

In case of no 4th crusade it would much easier for the empire to regain the biggest part of Anatolia and defend it. It wouldn't be a foreign area but a land with large Greek populations. Just 150 years Anatolia was inhabited by almost 20 million entirely Greeks and the Turks were tribes of only few thousands. So after this time the majority of the population was still Greek that chose the Turkish authority (and religion) for many different. It is possible that capable leadership could gain these populations and it be not an expansive campaign but regaining lost territories.

 

[NegusNegast]

Just 150 years Anatolia was inhabited by almost 20 million entirely Greeks and the Turks were tribes of only few thousands.

IIRC it was closer to 12 or 14 million inhabitants by the Seljuk invasion.

 

[Faeelin]

Fracticidal civil wars mean the empire falls to the Turks who the Byzantines kept losing to at some poitn in the 15th century.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Any specific POD?
However if this is after the rise of Alexius III, there are good chances that his son in law Theodore end up emperor. With him in control of a stronger empire I foresee something akin to the Komnenian restoration.

I think the easiest one is Enrico Dandolo dies in 1200 or so well before the 4th Crusade gets off the drawing board and whoever succeeds him focuses elsewhere. Having Dandolo die at 93 instead of 98 isn't exactly a huge stretch.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Perhaps this is outside of the scope of the scenario, but what do the organizers of the Fourth Crusade do instead of capturing Constantinople? Do they actually go through with their attempt to take Egypt and Jerusalem, successfully or unsuccessfully?

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Perhaps this is outside of the scope of the scenario, but what do the organizers of the Fourth Crusade do instead of capturing Constantinople? Do they actually go through with their attempt to take Egypt and Jerusalem, successfully or unsuccessfully?

The reason the Fourth Crusade got in trouble was because they had hired a specific amount of boats from Venice, which were built at great cost specifically for the expedition. But when the Crusade leaders gathered in Venice, they found that much fewer men than expected had showed up. This meant they were unable to pay the fees that they had promised. The Venetians were very angry, and demanded payment. This led to a difficult situation for all involved.

Let's say that either the leaders contracted Venice for a smaller number of ships, or that more men turned up. Either way, we have a scenario where the number of men that turn up is the correct number for the boats that Venice has provided, and the payment is made as planned. The Crusade then departs for Egypt.

 

[Ivan Lupo]

Perhaps this is outside of the scope of the scenario, but what do the organizers of the Fourth Crusade do instead of capturing Constantinople? Do they actually go through with their attempt to take Egypt and Jerusalem, successfully or unsuccessfully?

If they are still intent on serving Dandolo's bidding, maybe they could just fail miserably when trying to take Zara from the Hungarians and scurry back to Italy with their tail between their legs, or get cowed by the Pope's threats of excommunication.

 

[piratedude]

Is it plausible that the (legitimate) emperor to get the crusaders on his side and use them for his purposes?